It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:27 AM
11 11:

One question. You say that this ABL affects everything it touches. Well, if that's so, then why does it not damage all of the other buildings that it touches when it moves in the video? To be fair, there should be some damage to everything that the laser made contact with.

If you say that it has to be held in that position for a duration of time, then I'm left to assume that this is in fact a weak laser technology, and therefore not likely to be used in something of this nature. The reason I say this is because if the people behind this heinous act wanted to be assured that the buildings would fall, they wouldn't take their chances with a weak technology such as that.

I say we investigate what buildings it hit, and if those buildings had any maintenance in the months following 9/11. That might yield more clues. Until then though, the ABL theory is just that, a theory.


posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:45 AM
I never understood how the wings on both the planes that hit the WTC stayed attached during the impact. It looks like a Road Runner cartoon or something.

They claim they fell off when the plane hit the pentagon, but they aren't laying on the lawn.

How did two different scenarios happen in three events?

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:01 AM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Whilst you're arguing (in a friendly way) the finer points of the capabilities (or not) of the ABL, did anyone else spot this addition to the tail of the aircraft in the video, that does not appear on the ABL?

That is the left winglet of the jet. The angle of the jet makes the winglet appear in that position behind the vertical stabilizer.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:18 AM

This flash on this jet could be when the laser actually fired. It heated up the nose of the jet, or the building? whatever it was, it was bright.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by 11 11]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:42 AM
It was actually the sun reflecting off of the metal of the airplane. I saw that video feed several times that day, and the plane was an AA airplane. Typically, AA airplanes have a polished, reflective aluminum body, which makes them almost as bright as a mirror when the sun hits it just right. If you notice also, in the video the sun's position in relation to the airplane puts this reflection in the correct location. Notice the undersides of the wings are lit up?

To me, this is easily explained away as the sun reflecting off of the airplane. But what do I know? I'm just an ATS member with an eye for the reflective!!


posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:09 AM
As stated in the opening of this thread by the OP himself, using the term "smoking gun" would drive some people nutz...
In fact I would think that it should be banned as a rule and if "Smoking gun" is ever put into a thread title then it should be done by a mod in the same way as HOAX.
Why one way and not the other ?
I guess I'm a bit confused on what the smoking gun is supposed to be as well.. that an ABL shaped craft was there or the laser-weakening theory?

Back to topic:
I have been told a story by someone who was in the navy at a polar region a long long time ago on exercise. While in this polar region, a navy sub broke through the surface nearby and caught his company off guard. The navy sub was nuclear and hadn't been announced yet and his company was forced to swear an oath of secrecy on the subject. 8 years later the sub was announced as a reality.

This ABL is not only announced, but close to 100 years old in it's conception thanks to the true human master of the the universe Tesla. It think the capabilities are under stated by far for these type weapons and if it came to a full blown world war, I believe the demonstrations of the power we truly wield would astound the masses.

The FACT is that a plane was at the location at the precise time of destruction. The fact is there are numerous anomalies surrounding this event in a hella amount of videos. While I was once a supporter of the demolition theory (and still am to a slight extent thanks to video interviews of people who were actually THERE), this theory has some basis for 11 11 to take his stand on....

I'm not sold on the pentagon for sure, and this is something I'm chewing on for the towers... but I do like the attention drawn to this plane. It surely wasn't delivering biscuits..

Purdue scientific recreation of plane impact
the above link dispels the "building had to be heated to break through" so I'll still chew on the anomalies and would love to hear other views regarding the amazing coincidence of this ABL craft cruising around.


posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 05:12 AM
So tell us, how many of these lasers were in operation that morning, and how many people were involved and are keeping quiet?

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 05:22 AM

Haha actually it was a gray United Airlines aircraft and the orange color represents thermal energy not optical reflection.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:16 AM

Originally posted by pinner99

11 11, I never said the government does not lie. I said I do not believe all this crap about the government being a facilitator of 911. At least not on purpose. How you can believe the US DID this is far beyond my comprehension.

From what I remember the US had planned to kill their own many years back in a plan to blame another country. It was planned but not executed, this was explained in some declassified documents, I'll try and find the actual link for this later.

As for not believing a country would deliberately kill it's own is SOO naive, this act has been going on for many years in many countries. You would be stunned what a government would do to maintain / exert power.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Mclane]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:33 AM
I have two questions regarding the OP.

1) How would a laser show up as a dot in clear blue sky? Would it not have to be reflected off of something before being visible as a dot? I can accept the laser being visible via low light filters on the buildings, but in mid-air?

2) Why go to the trouble of 'painting' the WTC buildings with an airborne laser guide why you could 'paint' the WTC buildings much less conspicuously from the ground?


Edit: My mistake, I misread your post. The dot in the blue sky picture is the plane, I think?

[edit on 22/8/07 by subz]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:35 AM

Originally posted by TheBorg
It was actually the sun reflecting off of the metal of the airplane. I saw that video feed several times that day, and the plane was an AA airplane.

Ah, so I guess the sun must have hit both planes 'just right' huh?

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:48 AM
The plane in the picture is NOT the ABL. Look at the picture of the ABL, and look at the angle of of the wings, they sweep back at a very sharp angle, whereas the wings of the "white plane" appear to come out at almost 90 degree angles. Also, the "white plane" appears to have a fin approximately half way up the tail fin. the ABL does not have this either. Not the same plane....

**Edit** sorry, I see someone else brought this point up. However, another thought I had was how the ABL managed to keep this laser pointed at the same spot on the building all morning without someone noticing. The plane can't just hover there and shoot a laser at the building. One final thing is that if this laser is so potent, why is the military not using this thing as a weapon? I'm pretty sure the laser isn't potent enough to heat up the side of a high rise building and weaken its structure. The plane plowed through the wall because it was going 600 mph!!

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Jaruseleh]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:58 AM
Whilst the existence of the ABL over both locations (if that is what it was) is suspicious, its main laser (the momma of all lasers) wasn't even built in 2001, and its "kilowatt class" tracking laser sure doesn't have the punch to melt steel that thick.

Who is for a side-conspiracy that says they knew 9/11 was going to happen, so used it as a way to test their new toy on a live, unpredictable, moving target? We know the ABL will eventually be able to shoot down missiles, so why not airliners? Their construction is similar (thin-skinned metal).

The flash just looks like reflection from the sun. The video isn't high enough resolution to see, but I think you'll find the nose started to fold up as it impacts the building (along with broken glass coming out as the jet hits etc).

Due to the fact that the WTC attacks were in full fview of millions of people, I think it highly unlikely that they're going to do anything anything in less than a straight forward way. I think of any of the events of that day, the WTC is the easiest to explain, and be highly accurate (aircraft hijacked and crashed, then the buildings demolished). I think that is QED.

The Pentagon rates the second hardest to understand (and with the videos that they released, the most confusing), with Flight 93 being THE hardest to figure out due to a total lack of any evidence of any kind.

I really think more effort needs spending on the Pentagon and Flight 93, otherwise you're going to end up chasing your own tail.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:14 AM

Originally posted by 11 11
Hmmm a laser cutting 10mm steel. I don't see this laser "concentrating" on a spot to heat it up. Looks like an instant cut to me...

Here is a laser cutting AK-47 parts.. Go figure..

Your video debunks the use of ABL itself. If the laser is performing just like that, then it would cut throught the twin towers, not explode them upon contact.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:16 AM
The notion that the white spot is evidence of a laser burning the side of the South Tower in order to hasten its fall is ludicrous. It assumes that the building fell because of structural weakening due to the collision of the plane and the resulting fire. It did not. It was blown up into fine dust, floor by floor. The perps did not need to soften it up first. That was not their modus operandi. They had explosives planted all over the tower, some of which went off prematurely. The perps merely needed to dupe people into accepting that the towers fell because of the planes hitting them. I don't accept therefore that the white spot is a laser weapon as such. It may have been a laser beam with the targeting purpose of ensuring the plane (Flight 175 or something else) hit the 'right spot' on the 81st floor, which housed computers of Fuji Bank
But I think the simplest explanation is likely the correct one: it's just a piece of debris that had blown out of the hole in the North Tower and was being carried by the wind. Its motion towards the impact zone in the South Tower was pure coincidence. There are many pieces of similar-looking debris visible in the fireball.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by micpsi]

[edit on 22-8-2007 by micpsi]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:40 AM
I have yet seen aluminum pass through steel with pure kinetic energy.

You may have yet to see something to that effect, but that's not to say it's impossible.

We have weapons that use Explosively Formed Penatrators made of copper that can penetrate multiple inches of steal.

Iraq's are using sophisticated Improvised Explosive Devices using copper based Explosively Formed Penatrators to destroy American Armor. (yeah, sure, Iran’s not supplying these to Iraqi insurgents).

Aluminum passing through steel with pure kinetic energy, got news fer ya. That is VERY possible.

Click on the movie here:

To watch the Sensor Fused Weapon in action. EFP is made from copper.

Also, go here:

[edit on 22-8-2007 by hlesterjerome]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:46 AM
You are correct, everyone that has done minimal research of the events of 9/11/01 are well aware of these photos of that white plane. No need to go off topic.

Good catch putting the clues together.

I am unfamiliar with the ABL. Is it possible the laser was simply used to guide a commercial jet into the tower?

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:49 AM
Good post Bspiracy.

I agree the ABL probably has been tested, and ready to be used for over a decade now if not at least 5 years.

What is the time it takes between when the government creates, and has working versions of military equipment, and when this information is released to the public. I believe one Navy officer, while dode-ing'(sp?) over his F-22 Raptor, gloated that this time-frame is around 20 years. You know same for about the time we had stealth bombers/fighters in use, and the time the public was "let in" on the technology. So we can figure, the government will releasethier perfect flying triangles within the next 5-7 years. Since they've been seen flying over airforce base what 10-15 years back?

Anyways, I don't know if I believe 11 11's theory, but it's worth further looking into.

**However what I DO find extremely odd. Is how we had ABL's (and I do believe that was an abl in the film, and again at the pentagon) doing pass-overs before, and after these strikes, but we couldn't get even a single F-15 out there. Only well over an hour after the attacks in Shanksville, could we get ANY fighter intervention.

It amazes me, but moreso it scares the hell out of me.

You would think after the first plane hit. Air control would have realized traansponders on that plane were turned off 30 minutes before it impacted. Thus scrambling jets immediately, and takeing out the second Airliner before it reached NY, and downing the other two in similiar fashion, with pinpoint speed, and accuracy, like in Shanksville. But no.

The planes were ALLOWED to hit the towers. Fitted with bombs I believe. The explosions were just to big, and aluminum nose cones do not penetrate steel without some extra OOMPH>. Plus pictures of steel core columns near the basement cut on perfect 45 degree angels-- obviously cut with thermite shape charges. How stupid do they think we are?

There's just TOO much evidence, and too much they didn't cover-up properly, people have divided into all sorts of camps now:
(no planes(missiles),planes only,planes with bombs, C/D, now lasers) on what really happened. "Divide and Conquer" yes? It's horrible.

The Pentagon was also ALLOWED to be hit imo, oddly enough on the only side out of 5 that was recently reinforced to withstand attacks of this nature, yet still again the airliner made its way through what 3 rings comprising of nearly 10-12 feet (put all together) of reinforced concrete, only to leave a perfect cicular exit hole through the last wall it breached?

I just don't get it, I can't understand it all. Too many things just don't add up. When you get going on one track, you get derailed onto another theory of thinking, then another, ect, ect, ect.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Nola213]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:54 AM
Actually, it is no theory I see an ABL flying over NYC, tailing the second jet that impacts. That was broadcast on CNN on 9/11/01, so unless you allege and offer proof of msm tampering, it is reality.

It's no theory I see a laser painted on the second tower. That is reality. Again, broadcast on msm on 9/11/01.

Let's be clear on what is "theorized" here.. The "Theory" would be the extent of it's use, if at all.

Quite simply put: What was our military doing trailing one of the hijacked planes, and not intercepting it? THAT is what should be asked.

And why a laser capable jet, instead of an fighter?

This will not be "spun" away. THAT'S a laser equipped jet.

YOU explain it's presence.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:01 AM


I am unfamiliar with the ABL. Is it possible the laser was simply used to guide a commercial jet into the tower?

I'm leaning this way too it could possibly be a way to paint the target for accuracy .

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in